We thank Dr. Klyosov for his Comment. The speed of response is unusually impressive, and it covers a wide scope. However, we are concerned that this haste may not be in the best interest of the sound scientific process, as evidenced by the heavy reliance on non-refereed publications, unpublished work and work not accessible to the scientific reading audience through usual scientific channels (categories that cover all five citations to Dr. Klyosov’s previous work). Reference to non-peer reviewed and poorly accessible data and formulations renders the constructive critique process problematic. Furthermore, the use of unconventional and “private” terms without definition or reference renders response problematic. This includes terms such as “…genealogic haplotype series”. Moreover, a statement such as “Since the logarithmic and linear methods give the same dating the common ancestor, it means that there was indeed just one common ancestor for the whole series of 98 of 22 marker...